Tom King’s CRM Plus --
Ruminations on "cultural resource management," environmental impact assessment, and related esoteric topics, by a curmudgeon who seldom has anything good to say about anything.

Follow by Email

Monday, November 17, 2014

Contract Archaeology versus Plumbing

The other day, I was asked for a phone interview about “the
origins of CRM” – that is, “cultural resource management.” Always happy to expound on such obscure
topics, I readily agreed. I assumed that
the conversation would be about how “CRM” – an ill-defined set of practices
ostensibly aimed at “managing cultural resources” (whatever those are)
got started back in the 1970s.

That was how the conversation started, but it soon became
apparent that what my interlocutor was really interested in – indeed,
seemingly, what he defined as CRM – was the practice of contract
archaeology by for-profit private firms.
What did I know about how this now-prevalent practice got started, and
what did I think of efforts to regulate its quality through the licensing of
archaeologists by (now) the Registry of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) and
(formerly) the Society of Professional Archaeologists (SOPA)?

I couldn’t quite figure out what any of this had to do with
the origins of CRM, but I could and did cooperate by providing some facts and
opinions about how for-profit contract archaeology got started and about the
origins and sad history of SOPA, in which I was involved.

This led to a question of opinion – what did I think about
the efforts of some practitioners – employees of some of the contract firms,
apparently – to formalize and presumably improve the SOPA/ROPA-type
registration systems, in order to improve wages and working conditions?

My answer, in the unlikely event anyone has paid attention, probably
outraged those seeking to reform and strengthen the registration systems. I said I really didn’t give a damn. Granting that it’s important to those seeking
or holding employment as shovelbums, I simply don’t see it as an interesting public
policy issue.

Then came the inevitable rhetorical question: if plumbers have to be certified, why don’t
archaeologists?

Because, I said, society needs plumbers, and quality
plumbers at that. It does not
particularly need quality contract archaeologists.

The interview ended at that point. Had it gone on, I might have added the
caveats that in my opinion society does need quality cultural resource
managers – as I define that hypothetical field but not, apparently, as my
interlocutor did. Cultural resources,
broadly defined, are important parts of the environment; they’re obviously
meaningful to people. Impacts on them ought
to be carefully predicted and managed in the interests of equity and social
harmony. I might also have said that I
don’t deny the social, cultural, and entertainment value of archaeology.

But that’s as far as the caveats would have gone. Contract archaeologists simply aren’t like
contract plumbers. Without good
plumbing, people and communities would be seriously inconvenienced and in some
cases endangered. Without good, bad, or
indifferent archaeology done by “CRM” firms in advance of development projects –
well, I suspect we’d survive.

8 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Hi Tom,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Just for clarification, what exactly do you mean by “CRM”? Why do you refer to it as a “hypothetical field”?

Also, I think most Indigenous people would disagree with your assertion that “[c]ontract archaeologists simply aren’t like contract plumbers. Without good plumbing, people and communities would be seriously inconvenienced and in some cases endangered. Without good, bad, or indifferent archaeology done by ‘CRM’ firms in advance of development projects—well, I suspect we’d survive”.

Here is why your claim troubles me: the destruction of Indigenous heritage—typically at the permission of state-sanctioned CRM/CHM/ARM “experts”—endangers native cultures and peoples and threatens their survival. Like climate change, another development-driven threat, I consider CRM/CHM/ARM to be a “potential culture killer”. Indeed, I link “indifferent archaeology” to ethnocide and genocide, as well as solastalgia—a form of distress caused by environmental change, such as mining or climate change. For me, these points undermine your “contract archaeologist versus plumber” comparison.

Rich -- I could be coy and say "read my books," but I'll make it easy. Here's how I defined "CRM" in my 2011 edited "Companion to Cultural Resource Management" (Wiley-Blackwell):

“'Cultural resources' are all the aspects of the physical and supra-physical environment that human beings and their societies value for reasons having to do with culture. Included are culturally valued sites, buildings, and other places, plants and animals, atmospheric phenomena, sights and sounds, artifacts and other objects, documents, traditions, arts, crafts, ways of life, means of expression and systems of belief. “Cultural Resource Management” means actions undertaken to manage such phenomena, or – importantly – to identify and manage the ways in which change affects or may affect them."

That describes a hypothetical field because nobody actually practices it; most supposed CRMers just do archaeology. I entirely agree that the destruction of indigenous (and other) heritage endangers cultures and peoples and threatens their survival. I just don't think that doing good (or other) contract archaeology, or certifying people as able to do so, often has anything to do with avoiding such destruction. Indeed, I think most contract archaeologists, most of the time, contribute to it, precisely because they think of themselves as archaeologists first and foremost.

I think our views on the matters-at-hand are in most regards simpatico. For example, I have read and generally agree with your book Our Unprotected Heritage: Whitewashing the Destruction of Our Natural and Cultural Heritage. I do, however, have a follow-up question.

Have you read the book Taking Archaeology Out of Heritage? The premise is that “[a]rchaeology has, on the whole, tended to dominate the development of public policies and practices applicable to what is often referred to as ‘heritage’”. Some authors in this book suggest that archaeology be removed, in part or in whole, from the practice of CRM/CHM.

My question is this: why does no such movement/discussion exist in North America today?

Is this due in part to the linguistic confusion surrounding “CRM” and “ARM” (and “CRM” and “CHM”, and “EIA” and “SIA”, and “EPA” and “SEPA,” etc.)? In short, do we have a branding problem? Or a philosophical one?

Thanks, Rich. I haven't read "Taking Archaeology Out of Heritage," but will, as soon as I can scrape up the US$60 that Amazon demands for it. From the title and description, though, it looks to me like it expresses a typical European postmodern attitude -- nattering about being inclusive and out-reaching but doing so very strictly from an insider perspective, with the sort of maddening rhetoric that's so popular with postmodernists.

There is, of course, no mechanism for "taking archaeology out of heritage," which makes the matter a safe one for disgruntled archaeologists to natter about. What I think we really need to do is ACTUALLY be open to non-archaeological, and indeed non-"heritage" perspectives, and develop a profession that works with the whole cultural environment. We won't do this by taking things out of things; we'll do it by letting things IN.

As for the situation in North America, I think it's simply a matter of archaeologists having gotten organized earlier and better than practitioners of other disciplines when the environmental laws got enacted in the late '60s and early '70s; we glommed onto "culture" and used it to advance our own narrow interests. I apologized for my role in this practice-grab as it happened in California, in my paper "Mea Culpa for Archaeobias in California," which is on Academia.edu. But apologies are cheap; doing something about the matter is tricky. One thing I'm sure of, though; dealing with it involves broadening our own practice, not narrowing the definition of "heritage."

I hate to be the carrier of “bad” news, but I think you are a postmodernist! Or at least a dead ringer for one. Your critique (cultural criticism) of the modern institution of CRM (that is, how it is practiced in mainstream society today) and your call for a return to a an idealistic (“hypothetical”) premodern form of heritage stewardship (that is, your holisitic, postdisciplinary vision of CRM) are dead giveaways. So is your focus on bureaucracy.

In my mind, these are all admirable qualities. In light of your comments about “nattering postmodernists” in your previous statement, what do you think?

I may occasionally think like a postmodernist, Rich, but I hope to god I never write like one. I'll post -- on Academia.edu -- a review I did a few years ago of a book by Laurajane Smith, that articulates my grumpy distaste for postmodern rhetoric -- and the postmodern tendency to blather about being inclusive while focusing relentlessly on one's own navel.

No one, generally speaking, can be killed if a consultant working in CRM makes a mistake, if a plumber (or an architect or an engineer) makes a serious enough mistake people get sick or can die. That's why archaeologists' professional liability insurance is so cheap!

Pages

Welcome to Tom King's CRM Plus

Welcome to my blog on topics related to "cultural resource management," whatever that may mean to you or me. I hope you find some interest in what you read here, that you'll add your own contributions, and that you'll encourage others to have a look. Thanks!

About Me

Thomas F. King holds a PhD in anthropology from the University of California Riverside (1976), and has worked since the 1960s in the evolving fields of research and management variously referred to as heritage, cultural resource management, and historic preservation. He is particularly known for his work with Section 106 of the U.S. National Historic Preservation Act, and with indigenous and other traditional cultural places.

King is the author and editor of ten textbooks and tradebooks (See http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-F.-King/e/B001IU2RWK/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1353864454&sr=1-2-ent) as well as scores of journal articles, popular articles, and internet offerings on heritage topics.His career includes the conduct of archaeological research in California and the Micronesian islands, management of academy-based and private cultural resource consulting organizations, helping establish government historic preservation systems in the freely associated states of Micronesia, oversight of U.S. government project review for the federal government’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, service as a litigant and expert witness in heritage-related lawsuits, and extensive work as a consultant and educator in heritage-related topics. He is the co-author of the U.S. National Park Service's government-wide guidance on "traditional cultural properties" (TCPs; see http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/pdfs/nrb38.pdf). He occasionally teaches short classes about historic preservation project review, traditional cultural places, and consultation with indigenous groups, and consults and writes as TFKing PhD LLC. Current major clients include several American Indian tribes and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.